While I think OSM is how online maps should be, I can't help it but use Google Maps because it is a much more refined map and a better experience overall. OSM has inferior labeling, inconsistent attributes and tbh is just far uglier. And while I've used the data in GIS, it's quite messy to work with in my experience.

I've never heard of OSM before, so I checked it out really fast. Honestly, it's not as bad as I though it would be. The map seems relatively easy to edit but they probably should focus on making the map easy to USE. I use google maps mainly to find directions to places, so while I'm sure it is possible to do with OSM, making it easy to find and use would be a great plus. Adding bus/train/metro schedules would be great too. And while I appreciate the fact they do the map in the language spoken in the country, it might be nice to add an english version so I can look for Moscow without needing to know Cyrillic.

Yeah, many many flaws but crowdsourcing is powerfull so there is hope...

Yeah, many many flaws but crowdsourcing is powerfull so there is hope...

I think crowdsourcing is only effective when it has a strong goal, one that can be explained easily. Often, this means that a small group of admins / mods needs to lay down the foundation to make sure the crowd can easily contribute something worthwhile. It's the very reason why the OSM has focused its attention to making it as easy as possible for people to edit their maps.

Well... this is the problem with capitalism. The author expects people to use an inferior product with more inconvenience out of principle? Good luck with that. A majority of the population doesn't give a shit about what the companies behind their products are doing - at least, in my view, not enough to actually cause them to seek out clearly inferior product.

The article is more about how it should be than about how it is. There is no doubt about OSM being shittier, and thus having trouble competing, it's just that the dominance over place shouldn't belong to a company. What we (the world) needs is a better OSM or an OSM-esque service that is better or equal to GMaps. The latter is practically impossible, so OSM is the best we've got.

But how can we possibly get to how things "should be" given our current social structure which essentially says that if you can't make money at something, it's not worth doing? It just seems like an exercise in futility given the reality of how things currently are. It's the same reason why Walmart is so successful despite the shittiness of the company, particularly in how they treat their vendors and employees. Very few people care, though: they offer the best prices in the most convenient ways. It'd be great if Walmart employees would be treated well and with the benefits any reasonable company should provide its workers, but is the average person really willing to give up the benefits of shopping there just out of spite? I don't think so. Similar point here: there will be a subsegment of the population for which this is a sticking point, but the your Average Joe user simply doesn't care. They want the ease and integration Google provides.

But how can we possibly get to how things "should be" given our current social structure which essentially says that if you can't make money at something, it's not worth doing?

Economic structure. Your argument seems very similar to what was said about Wikipedia in its early stage. It, too, was in a very competitive market, with high-quality encyclopaedias being made and sold. But ultimately it won because it grew quickly into a vastly superior product for the average user. OSM will need to do that too, if it wants to become ubiquitous. Right now, there are no features exclusive to OSM for the average Joe. It does the same as Google Maps, often worse. Only when it has a competitive advantage I think it will grow, and the map world will be how it 'should' be. I'm not saying I know how that's gonna happen, but I think it must.

Only when it has a competitive advantage I think it will grow, and the map world will be how it 'should' be. I'm not saying I know how that's gonna happen, but I think it must.

I don't think the bar is that high; just making geocoding with Nominatim at least close to as reliable as Google Maps (which is itself not a high bar) would be enough for many applications to switch to it. If your application does enough geocoding that you can't just use Google Maps for free, it gets expensive. Applications being built on it will get you your features for the average joe.